Mr. Speaker, what we are looking to do is to try to create an early learning and child care system in every province and territory in this country. The closest analogy would be an education system where the jurisdiction is in the provinces. The provinces in instances such as that, and ones like the hon. member cited, those things can happen. They happen as part of the relationship between the provincial government and the education system.

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, the Prime Minister was very clear about the taping affair: an offer was solicited. This was stated in this House and can be read in the official report of the Debates of the House of Commons .

Since we have this tangible proof that the Prime Minister was aware that a criminal offence might have been committed, what remains to be determined is when he was informed of it.

I will again ask the Prime Minister: When was he informed that the Conservative member had approached his chief of staff? Was it during the negotiations or after they were all over?

Mr. Speaker, as has been repeated in this House, the member for Newton—North Delta wanted to cross the floor. The Prime Minister said that no offer was made and no offer was in fact made.

I understand that the Bloc has contacted the RCMP and I understand that the member wants to conduct his own investigation on the floor of the House of Commons. However, if he has actually written to the RCMP and if he does in fact have more information that he can share with the RCMP, I would encourage him to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, the government has said on numerous occasions that anyone with information on the taping affair should contact the RCMP. We therefore filed a complaint with the RCMP based on what the Prime Minister told us here in this House.

The Prime Minister knew before the rest of us that a criminal offence had possibly been committed. Why was he so remiss in his duty and complicit in the matter by not alerting the RCMP? Why does the Prime Minister not want to reply?

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has been saying for several days that there was an insistent request on the part of a given member but that there were no offers made to encourage him to cross the floor. Setting aside for the moment whether or not offers were made by the government, there would appear to have been a criminal offence committed from the moment someone allegedly sought out an offer in exchange for selling his vote to the government.

When did the Prime Minister know that the member had made that request?

Mr. Speaker, again I am getting the same question and to that question I would suggest that if there is additional information, the Bloc should provide that to the RCMP.

Rather than conduct an investigation on the floor of the House of Commons, the Bloc members should follow up on their letter. If they have more information, I would suggest they provide that information to the RCMP.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said too much, and now he is not willing to be accountable for his actions. This is just like the sponsorship scandal. The Prime Minister wanted to see nothing and hear nothing, and to let things just happen, without anyone being able to pin anything on him.

This is my question for him: A criminal offence may have been committed. We want to know when he was informed of it.

Mr. Speaker, whether a crime has been committed or not is really the domain of the people doing the investigation. The Bloc has indicated in the House that it has sent a letter to the RCMP to determine whether an investigation is required.

The Bloc has the opportunity to let the RCMP do the work that it has asked the RCMP to do. If it has further information, it should provide that information.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Development is not willing to listen to constructive criticism of his day care scheme. He is refusing to meet with Kids First and other groups that are in favour of choice in child care. He will not even take a phone call. He refuses to consider families who are left out of his plan. He refuses to hear about innovative alternatives to institutional day care.

Mr. Speaker, since last July, I have travelled across the country many times. I have been coast to coast and almost to coast. Everywhere I go I listen to people talk about their lives and how they have lived their lives. I listen to them talk about the challenges of having children and the goals, the ambitions and the hopes they have for their children. I listen to them talk about what they have, what they would like to have and what they are missing.

One of the things they would like to have is the choice of good, affordable, available early learning and child care.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has an obligation to consider all options before spending billions of dollars but he refuses. He has an obligation to discuss policy options with all Canadians but he refuses. He has an obligation to consider the true cost of his day care scheme but he refuses. He talks about opening the minds of children and exposing them to all the world has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member, in just about everything she said, is wrong. She was wrong yesterday and she is wrong today. At a certain point one would have to assume that she is purposely wrong.

What we are trying to do is create a national early learning and child care system that will be there for all parents and for all children, a system that has ambitions of early learning, a system that will be there for rural areas, remote areas and urban areas, not $320 a year for the lowest income.